Re: Where is college wrestling's outrage?

I agree with Schlottke. I thought the Gelogaev flip-off was pretty blatant and, ya know, ON TV and everything, but Gelogaev is basically unimportant. I know that's harsh. I'm sure he's a lovely young man, but in the big picture of college wrestling? Not so much.

The problem I have with the article is a couple of sentences right at the beginning: "Even though I did not see any of the ..." and "Now, admittedly, have no idea if anything happened ...." Um. Maybe you should, I don't know, find some video of it or something before you start spouting off? Just a thought. Any of our resident journalists have an opinion on that?

Re: Where is college wrestling's outrage?

Yeah, this is all water under the bridge. The Hawkeyes willl always have a big target on their backs, and if they don't, they're not wrestling hard enough.

Gelogaev can do whatever he likes with his fingers. Looked like he was sitting on his thumb for the Varner match.

I do have to take issue with Schlottke, however. In Boston, we take Yankee comparisons seriously.
Iowa ≠ Yankees
The Yankees are an overpaid collection of hired guns, and few people are coming to Iowa City for the theater, the art, or the real estate.

Re: Where is college wrestling's outrage?

Originally Posted by grapplefan

... few people are coming to Iowa City for the theater, the art, or the real estate.

I have an awesome (huge) painting over my fireplace that I bought from a fabulous Iowa City artist. And I miss my house there. As for the theater, well, the National Dance Academy's annual recital at the Hancher is surprisingly well put together. (You realize I get your point though.)

Re: Where is college wrestling's outrage?

Originally Posted by angelfish

I agree with Schlottke. I thought the Gelogaev flip-off was pretty blatant and, ya know, ON TV and everything, but Gelogaev is basically unimportant. I know that's harsh. I'm sure he's a lovely young man, but in the big picture of college wrestling? Not so much.

The problem I have with the article is a couple of sentences right at the beginning: "Even though I did not see any of the ..." and "Now, admittedly, have no idea if anything happened ...." Um. Maybe you should, I don't know, find some video of it or something before you start spouting off? Just a thought. Any of our resident journalists have an opinion on that?

The "not having seen things" jumped out at me. Now, I can understand that, as a trained journalist, he may be in full disclosure mode and doesn't want to be grilled as if he had been a witness when he hadn't seen the offensive acts. However, admitting to not seeing the acts he rails against does take away a bit from the case he's building.

I say all this as someone who has very old-fashioned notions of sportsmanship, and tends to think that pretty much ALL the examples he cites as being not good for the sport. After all, Dan Gable didn't grab at his crotch when walking off the mat. Dan Hodge didn't flip off the crowd at Iowa Fieldhouse after pinning Gary Kurdelmeier. Bill Koll was known for bodyslamming opponents from overhead, but he didn't shove an opponent who was in the middle of a celebratory backflip. (Then again, Koll never lost in college.)